This entry was posted
on Saturday, September 2nd, 2006 at 1301 by Jonathan Rees
and is filed under Walmart.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
7 Responses to “Yet another reason Edelman should talk to us”
Jonathan,
I came acrossed that website a few months ago I think. It really doesn’t do much for those of us that think that it is reasonable for Wal-Mart and other corporations to change.
Peter
I personally never thought the Weathermen did much for that other anti-war movement (the one in the late ’60s), but I didn’t really care since I had no association with them.
I’m a strict constructionist when it comes to the First Amendment. Justice Holmes got it wrong. We do have a Constitutional right to yell Fire in a crowded theater. If people act like sheep and panic, well that’s their choice.
Sites like Wal Qeada make us look good. We are the reasonable people.
So Jeff is taking the Justice Black position! I agree that Holmes got it wrong but only because he was applying the First Amendment narrowly to a draft case. However, I do think there should be at least some limits on the First Amendment. Suppose Wal-Mart claims that shopping there cures cancer. Should they be allowed to make such claims? Of course not. Wal-Mart Watch has argued that the Wal-Mart political ads should be pulled off the air for he same reason. I don’t know if those actually cross that line, but the principle that Wal-Mart Watch is applying is perfectly sound no matter how much the the right wing might bellyache about Wal-Mart’s right to free speech being curtailed. Besides, corporations aren’t people, but that’s for another post.
Societies never tolerate true free speech. They are always afraid that exposure to new ideas will cause people to think for themselves. The US has done better than most, but has had many lapses.
The suppression of the anti-war and socialist magazines during WWI was one of the most flagrant cases.
Last week a man was arrested (for “aiding the terrorists”) for supplying a satellite feed to those in his area who wanted to watch a Hezbollah sponsored TV channel.
What was different in the 20th Century was that the rise of the mass media and the associated media concentration meant that money equaled access. In England anyone can get up on a soap box in Speaker’s Corner, but how many can actually hear him?
What has people in power nervous these days is that the internet may give a voice to the common man in a way that hasn’t existed since society got too big for town meetings. This voice is starting to be heard in the political area, but so far has had minimal impact in the commercial sector.
It will be interesting to see if web campaigns develop enough to cause, say, many of the phoney dietary supplements off the market. Or if the Walmart critics have any success.
Some places, like China, have realized the potential power of person to person communication, which is why they are attempting to censor the web. We will see who triumphs.
Free speech and the First Amendment are probably the one area where I am more than a little bit fanatical. And I admit that it is something that I occasionally go back and forth over. But I think that Wal Mart ought to be able to claim that shopping there does cure cancer. After all we don’t have a lot of problems with charlatans like Ernest Angsley claiming that he can cure aids with a laying on of hands.
The response to lies must be truth, not censorship.
Jeff:
The problem with unfettered commercial speech is that money talks louder than truth.
For example, the tobacco companies lied about health effects for over 50 years and used their economic power to drown out scientific evidence. They also used their economic power to push through legislation that prevented the health authorities (like the FDA) from regulating their product.
Your model of free speech assumes that their will be a battle of ideas (or facts) and that the public will be able to evaluate the competing claims and make the best choices. But with lopsided economic power this is currently not working well.
We see the same imbalance in discussions of public policy issues as well. In the US there is still a modest independent press component, but it is much weaker than the corporate mass media. Let’s face it, if the Walmart issues got wide public exposure this site wouldn’t need to exist.
I don’t know the solution, but I think a requirement that commercial firms support their claims by actual evidence is not too much of an infringement of free speech.
Jonathan,
I came acrossed that website a few months ago I think. It really doesn’t do much for those of us that think that it is reasonable for Wal-Mart and other corporations to change.
Peter
Shalom Peter,
I personally never thought the Weathermen did much for that other anti-war movement (the one in the late ’60s), but I didn’t really care since I had no association with them.
I’m a strict constructionist when it comes to the First Amendment. Justice Holmes got it wrong. We do have a Constitutional right to yell Fire in a crowded theater. If people act like sheep and panic, well that’s their choice.
Sites like Wal Qeada make us look good. We are the reasonable people.
B’shalom,
Jeff
So Jeff is taking the Justice Black position! I agree that Holmes got it wrong but only because he was applying the First Amendment narrowly to a draft case. However, I do think there should be at least some limits on the First Amendment. Suppose Wal-Mart claims that shopping there cures cancer. Should they be allowed to make such claims? Of course not. Wal-Mart Watch has argued that the Wal-Mart political ads should be pulled off the air for he same reason. I don’t know if those actually cross that line, but the principle that Wal-Mart Watch is applying is perfectly sound no matter how much the the right wing might bellyache about Wal-Mart’s right to free speech being curtailed. Besides, corporations aren’t people, but that’s for another post.
Societies never tolerate true free speech. They are always afraid that exposure to new ideas will cause people to think for themselves. The US has done better than most, but has had many lapses.
The suppression of the anti-war and socialist magazines during WWI was one of the most flagrant cases.
Last week a man was arrested (for “aiding the terrorists”) for supplying a satellite feed to those in his area who wanted to watch a Hezbollah sponsored TV channel.
What was different in the 20th Century was that the rise of the mass media and the associated media concentration meant that money equaled access. In England anyone can get up on a soap box in Speaker’s Corner, but how many can actually hear him?
What has people in power nervous these days is that the internet may give a voice to the common man in a way that hasn’t existed since society got too big for town meetings. This voice is starting to be heard in the political area, but so far has had minimal impact in the commercial sector.
It will be interesting to see if web campaigns develop enough to cause, say, many of the phoney dietary supplements off the market. Or if the Walmart critics have any success.
Some places, like China, have realized the potential power of person to person communication, which is why they are attempting to censor the web. We will see who triumphs.
Shalom Jonathan,
Free speech and the First Amendment are probably the one area where I am more than a little bit fanatical. And I admit that it is something that I occasionally go back and forth over. But I think that Wal Mart ought to be able to claim that shopping there does cure cancer. After all we don’t have a lot of problems with charlatans like Ernest Angsley claiming that he can cure aids with a laying on of hands.
The response to lies must be truth, not censorship.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Jeff:
The problem with unfettered commercial speech is that money talks louder than truth.
For example, the tobacco companies lied about health effects for over 50 years and used their economic power to drown out scientific evidence. They also used their economic power to push through legislation that prevented the health authorities (like the FDA) from regulating their product.
Your model of free speech assumes that their will be a battle of ideas (or facts) and that the public will be able to evaluate the competing claims and make the best choices. But with lopsided economic power this is currently not working well.
We see the same imbalance in discussions of public policy issues as well. In the US there is still a modest independent press component, but it is much weaker than the corporate mass media. Let’s face it, if the Walmart issues got wide public exposure this site wouldn’t need to exist.
I don’t know the solution, but I think a requirement that commercial firms support their claims by actual evidence is not too much of an infringement of free speech.
[...] Yet another reason Edelman should talk to us [...]